9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 794 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - power to issue SCN - Held that - sub-section 11 was inserted under section 28 of the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 dated 16.09.2011, assigning the functions of proper officers to various DRI officers with retrospective effect - Later on, i.e. for the period subsequent to the amendment, the matter i.e. the DRI officers having the proper jurisdiction to issue the SCN or not had come up before the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex vs. Union of India 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT , and the High Court inter alia, held that even the new inserted section 28(11) does not empower either the officers of DRI or the DGCEI to issue the SCN for the period prior to 8.4.11. Matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangli Impex and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of Preventive Officers to issue show cause notice under the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Preliminary Plea Raised by Appellant's Counsel: The appellant's counsel raised a preliminary plea challenging the jurisdiction of the Preventive Officers to issue the show cause notice in the case. Citing a High Court decision, it was argued that DRI/Preventive Officers lacked the competence to issue such notices. The request was made to set aside the proceedings initiated by the Preventive formation officer. 2. Department's Justification and Request: On the other hand, the Department's counsel justified the notice issued and requested the matter to be decided on merit, opposing the appellant's jurisdictional challenge. 3. Jurisdictional Issue and Legal Background: The key issue emerging from the record was the jurisdiction of Preventive Officers to issue show cause notices under the Customs Act. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision to argue that such officers were not proper officers as per the Customs Act. Subsequent amendments to Section 28 of the Customs Act were noted, empowering certain officers, including Commissioner (Preventive), as 'proper officers' for issuing demand notices. 4. Retrospective Assigning of Functions: Notification No. 44/2011-Cus (NT) and subsequent amendments assigned the functions of proper officers to Commissioner (Preventive)/DRI with retrospective effect, addressing the jurisdictional concerns raised by the Supreme Court ruling. 5. Contradictory High Court Decisions: The issue of jurisdiction was subject to conflicting decisions by different High Courts. While the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, other High Courts took a contrary view. The matter was eventually brought before the Supreme Court for resolution. 6. Recent High Court Decision and Remand Order: A recent decision by the Delhi High Court in a similar case granted liberty to review the challenge based on the outcome of appeals filed in the Supreme Court. In line with this, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a decision on jurisdiction post the Supreme Court decision. The appellant was granted an opportunity to be heard, and the status quo was to be maintained until a final decision. 7. Final Decision and Outcome: Ultimately, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on the jurisdictional issue before proceeding on the merits of the case. This detailed analysis encapsulates the jurisdictional complexities and legal developments leading to the Tribunal's decision in the case.
|
